I think that Weigel missed one of Benedict’s most important points, namely, that Islam fundamentally rejects reason and thus is probably incapable of changing. This was the thing that enraged the Muslims, although 1400 years of the hideous life of this violent, dark, irrational cult have certainly proved that he was correct.
Also, what’s this with “colonialism” and Islam? The only reason there were any “colonies” is that Islam can only be controlled when it has no power bases from which to attack, and the colonies were basically the result of defensive activities by non-Islamic states to protect themselves. This led to the suppression of the terror and conquest- supporting Islamic states and even their occupation.
Also, bear in mind that there is no such thing as a functional Islamic state. Violence and poverty and dysfunction are the rule, because Islam makes a miserable system of governance.
“I think that Weigel missed one of Benedict’s most important points, namely, that Islam fundamentally rejects reason”
The rejection of reason within Islam is sometimes traced to the 11th century book, “The Incoherence of the Philosophers”, by Al-Ghazali, which refuted previous philosophers like Avicenna (Ibn Sina), by using scriptural sources (like Abraham not being burned by fire), to argue that attempts to analyze the world by cause and effect, and logical reasoning were ultimately futile, because God controls all according to his will. This has been attributed with engendering fatalism, and an abandonment of critical reasoning, in favor of blind acceptance and obedience to scripture.
It seemed to me that Pope Benedict showed that reinterpretation of scripture and philosophy is possible, from the example of the Church itself throughout history.